Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds transparency by detailing what the response includes and how includeUsedBy changes the result, though it does not describe error cases or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, using two sentences to cover the tool's purpose, parameters, and special conditions without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what is returned, explains all parameters, and notes the conditional behavior of includeUsedBy.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters have clear schema descriptions, and the tool description reinforces the meaning of responseId, scope, and includeUsedBy. It also adds context that the response includes rowVersion and that includeUsedBy is project-scope only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves one shared response and enumerates the included fields (schema, headers, example, rowVersion), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_shared_responses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful usage direction by explaining the default scope, the option to set includeUsedBy, and the project-scope-only restriction for that flag. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools, but the single-item retrieval purpose is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.